The recent retirement of Patriots wideout Julian Edelman re-stoked the debate about Rod Smith’s Hall of Fame candidacy. Smith, who played all 12 of his NFL seasons with the Broncos, finished his career with three Pro Bowl nods, two second-team All-Pro selections and two Super Bowl rings. After going undrafted, Smith posted 849 career receptions for 11,389 yards, with 68 touchdowns and a 13.4 yards/catch average. Meanwhile, Edelman — whom many fans argue is Canton-worthy considering his role as a centerpiece in the Patriots’ dynasty — put up less impressive numbers across 11 seasons in New England. Edelman, a former seventh-round pick, had 620 career receptions for 6,822 yards, with 36 touchdowns and an 11.0 yards/catch average. The three-time Super Bowl champ was never named to a Pro Bowl. Edelman does have the edge in playoff performance in his 19 postseason games compared to Smith’s 13. Edelman’s 118 receptions for 1,442 yards are second-most in the modern playoff era behind Jerry Rice, while Smith finished with 49 receptions for 860 yards and equaled Edelman’s six playoff touchdowns. Once Edelman is officially eligible for the Hall of Fame in five years, he’s not going to be a first-ballot inductee, but the hype and the popularity from playing with the Patriots will certainly help his Canton cache. It already has. Meanwhile, Smith sits and waits for his (more-deserving) call to Canton… as do should-be Hall of Fame wideouts Torry Holt and Reggie Wayne. — Kyle Newman, The Denver Post If you enjoy The Denver Post’s sports coverage, we have a new subscription offer for you! Try the first month for just 99¢ What’s on tap? TV/RADIO: Here’s what sports are airing today Ask the Expert + Broncos Mailbag: Have a question about the team? Tap here to ask Ryan O’Halloran . + Want to chat about the Broncos? Ask to join our closed discussion group on Facebook. Get in Touch If you see something that’s cause for question or have ...
Reception year absence
Letters: The status quo is killing us (4/18/21)
The status quo is killing us Re: “Mass incarceration, racial disparities are harming Coloradans,” April 8 commentary You might know Michael Marshall as the mentally ill, homeless man killed by sheriff’s deputies in the Denver jail, but to me he was Uncle Mike. Son of John Marshall and Hattie Lee Black-Marshall, Uncle Mike was a loving man, willing to do what he could for his family and other people experiencing homelessness. He had a contagious laugh and presence that brought joy at holidays and Sunday dinners. Because he lived with schizophrenia and the stigma that goes along with mental illness and poverty, you’ll never get to meet the man I loved, but you can honor his memory by supporting Senate Bill 62. Jails should be for people who are a danger to others. Yet, too many people like my uncle are jailed because they are experiencing homelessness, mental illness, substance use disorder, or can’t afford to buy their freedom. Uncle Mike was jailed for an alleged low-level trespass and held on a $100 bond. Because he couldn’t afford to pay the toll to get out, he paid with his life. Many in law enforcement want things to stay the same. But the system has stayed consistent for decades and look at the results: Rev. Marvin Booker, Jeffrey Lillis, Jackson Maes, sweet Uncle Mike and too many others gone forever — and for what? The status quo might work for law enforcement but it doesn’t work for us. For communities of color and people like Uncle Mike, the status quo kills. We can be safe and save lives with Senate Bill 62. Natalia Marshall, Aurora Gun owners respond to reader’s question Re: “Gun owners, please, offer your solutions,” April 14 letter to the editor The author of this letter implored gun owners and defenders of the Second Amendment to offer concrete and viable proposals to dramatically reduce gun violence in America. Notwithstanding the fact that it is the responsibility of those who wish to regulate or deny a right to ...
Exclusive: Republican Attorneys General Plan to Fight ‘Insane’ Court-Packing Battle
Republican attorneys general (AGs) across the country are prepared to fight the recently introduced court-packing legislation, as indicated by their vocal statements of opposition to it, endorsements of the Keep Nine amendment, and vows to explore legal routes to challenge the legislation. In interviews with Breitbart News, several AGs expressed they were firmly against the court-packing bill, unveiled Thursday as the Judiciary Act of 2021 by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), and other Democrats. “This is an effort for the Democrats to try to add numbers to the Court to be able to validate the most liberal agenda that we’ve seen out of Congress in clearly my lifetime,” Alabama AG Steve Marshall told Breitbart News. Missouri AG Eric Schmitt called it “a total affront to our Republic” and “counterintuitive to the Founders’ vision.” Talk of court packing first resurfaced last fall amid the swift confirmation process of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the third justice appointed by former President Donald Trump. Barrett’s appointment fueled Democrat outrage, prompting leftist calls for court-packing as party leaders decried Trump and the Republican-majority Senate seating a new justice with the 2020 election — and the possibility of party control shifting in Washington — just weeks away. Markey, as he introduced the Judiciary Act, claimed the Supreme Court, which tends to lean 5–4 conservative, was “illegitimate” and that after justices are added to it, “the bench will then rightfully reflect the values of the majority of the American people on whose behalf they serve.” Marshall assessed the effort: “This is all about power.” It Could Expand Beyond 13 Schmitt, along with Ohio AG Dave Yost and Arkansas AG Leslie Rutledge, emphasized the new precedent lawmakers would set with the Judiciary Act, which involves adding four seats to the High Court’s nine-seat bench. “There’s no limiting principle,” Schmitt said. “If they want 13, what’s to ...
Broncos Position Outlook: Team set with pass-catching tight ends, but may explore blocker
Third in a series looking at each Broncos position group heading into the NFL draft (April 29-May 1): 2020 review: Noah Fant led the Broncos in receptions (62), was third in receiving yards (673) and tied for second in touchdowns (three). Fant played 15 games and 732 of 1,075 offensive snaps (72.4%). … Albert Okwuegbunam overcame a training camp injury to play in four games and catch 11 passes before sustaining a torn ACL. … The rest of the tight ends combined for 24 catches. In-house offseason moves: None. Additions: None. Departures: The Broncos released Nick Vannett after one season (he signed with New Orleans). Jake Butt and Troy Fumagalli were not tendered one-year contracts and remain free agents. Under contract: Fant, Okwuegbunam and Austin Fort. Andrew Beck is listed as a fullback/tight end. Outlook: An offseason project for the Broncos’ coaches should be to figure out ways to get Fant down the field more often. As a rookie, he averaged 14.1 yards per catch, but 10.9 last year (long of 37 yards). Fant is serviceable enough as a blocker to play in 11 personnel (3WR-1RB-1TE) — 6 1/ 2 “bad” run blocks in 2020. An intriguing possibility is coordinator Pat Shurmur using Fant/Okwuegbunam at the same time to keep the defense in base, allowing them to be matched against linebackers in coverage. Fort remains under contract, but has missed both of his seasons because of knee injuries. Need scale (1-10) — 2. Vannett served as the primary in-line blocking tight end, but his two-year, $5.7 million contract was too expensive for a player who didn’t add much as a receiver. But the Broncos should look at Day 3 tight ends who are more blocker/less receiver. Tuesday: Offensive line. Previous position outlooks: Linebackers | Defensive backs . Policies Report an Error Contact Us Submit a News Tip ...
Juan Williams: Am I not Black enough?
In the current world of racial politics, a prize-winning Dutch author lost a job translating a Black American poet, Amanda Gorman. Why? There was an uproar because the publisher had chosen a white translator. In 2021 racial politics, the actor Daniel Kaluuya, who recently played 1960s Black radical Fred Hampton, introduced himself to a “Saturday Night Live” audience this way: “I know you’re hearing my accent and thinking ‘Oh no, he’s not Black — he’s British.’ I’m here to reassure you that I am Black. I’m Black. And I’m British.” And in today’s world of racial niche media, a white TV host recently dismissed me from appearing on his show to discuss race relations by telling me I didn’t qualify because I was born in Panama. ADVERTISEMENT He thinks I’m not Black enough. Seriously. The white host of the PBS-affiliated show, “This is America & the World,” flatly said despite my black skin — and award-winning books on race relations — my place of birth made me a bad fit for a discussion on the racial unrest following the murder of George Floyd. I’m a big boy. To live as a Black man in America for the last 63 years requires tough skin. I already have to deal with the fact that a lot of people can’t find the right box for a black Democrat who works for Fox News. But rejecting me over where I was born is a new one. I wouldn’t have known why the invitation was revoked if the host had not been so confident in his racial calculation that he sent me a note to share his thinking. ADVERTISEMENT He opened a window on the kind of thinking once used to keep Blacks, women, Latinos, Asians — basically anyone but white men — out of public debates. For most of American history, no one blinked at the absence of those voices in dialogue about economics, foreign policy, scientific innovation. It was simply assumed that they lacked expertise and their point of view was marginal. But as a Black American author of several best-selling books on civil rights ...
